linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kmemcheck v3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:20:32 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kmemcheck v3

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 01:18:37PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 2/8/08, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > Your assumption that only the string instructions can take
> > multiple page faults seems a little dangerous too.
> 
> Yes, this is true. I cannot guarantee that there are no other
> instructions that could access more than one memory location but only
> take one page fault. However, since the kernel does boot, we at least
> know that these instructions are not very frequently used. (If you
> know of any other instructions we might be missing, I'll be happy to
> know about it!)

Pretty much all in the right circumstances.

e.g. consider a segment reload in tracked memory.

Also there are various instructions which do all kinds of complicated
things internally; like IRET or INT: often with many memory accesses.
Just page through a instruction manual and look at the pseudo code
describing what the various instructions do.

> 
> There is also the point that if kmemcheck doesn't handle all the
> faulting addresses, it will simply fault again and again, without
> making any progress. I mean, it won't go unnoticed for very long :-)
> 
> This is also why we depend on M386 and !X86_GENERIC, to avoid those
> MMX, etc. instructions, as we have no support for those currently

I would not expect problems from MMX/SSE here (except for the generic
ones all instructions have) 

-Andi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/